Charges Deployed to Silence ECUSA Bishops in Court

The following is an email received yesterday by resigned (retired) Bishops Edward Salmon and two other bishops from the Intake Officer for the Disciplinary Board for Bishops, the Rt. Rev. F. Clayton Matthews:

As the Intake Officer for the Church, I am obliged to inform you that a complaint has been received against you for your action in signing affidavits in opposition to a motion for Summary Judgment made by representatives of The Episcopal Diocese of Quincy and The Episcopal Church in the Fall of 2011 to secure the Diocesan financial assets from a breakaway group. In the next few weeks, I will initiate a disciplinary process according to Title IV Canon 6 Sec. 3 & 4 of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church.

Sincerely,

Clay

I reported previously on how the Episcopal Church (USA) lost its motion for summary judgment in the Quincy litigation in this post. It appears (see below) that there are those in the Church who did not take kindly to the three bishops’ role in that defeat.

As the Intake Officer for the Church, I am obliged to inform you that a complaint has been received against you for your action in filing of Amicus Curiae Brief in the pending appeal in the Supreme Court of Texas in opposition to The Episcopal Diocese of Texas and The Episcopal Church. In the next few weeks, I will initiate a disciplinary process according to Title IV Canon 6 Sec. 3 & 4 of the Constitution and Canons of e Episcopal Church.

Sincerely,

Clay

We also know, from postings on the HoBD list serve, that one of ECUSA’s attorneys in the Fort Worth litigation, Kathleen Wells, Esq., who is the chancellor for the faux diocese of Fort Worth (and whose whole career is thus now devoted to working for and defending a legal fiction), has been agitating for a “litmus test” for all new bishops: determine whether or not they agree with 815’s view of ECUSA as a total hierarchy, as it has been proclaiming in all its litigation.

Since the amicus brief was filed against Chancellor Wells’ official position in the Fort Worth litigation, it is not too much of a stretch to guess at who may have initiated the filing of these “charges” with the Disciplinary Board. {Curmudgeon's Side Note: If she did, she may have disciplinary charges of her own to face, before the Texas bar. Those more familiar with the Code of Professional Ethics for members of the bar there may comment on the details, but in California, at least, it is an ethical violation for a member of the bar to instigate criminal or disciplinary proceedings against an opponent in order to gain an advantage in a civil case. If she is the one at the bottom of these charges, then she certainly would be trying to gain an advantage from it. The same would be true of David Booth Beers and/or Mary Kostel at 815, only they would be held to standards of professional discipline under the Code in the District of Columbia.}

Needless to say, these “charges” should never make it past the Intake Officer. Why they require investigation “over the next few weeks” is beyond this canon law attorney. To be sure, Bishop Matthews is unable to dismiss the charges on his own if the Presiding Bishop objects to that dismissal. Canons IV.5.4 and IV.5.5 state in part as follows (note that in the case of charges against bishops, Canon IV.17.2 (c) provides that “Bishop Diocesan” shall mean the Presiding Bishop):

Sec. 4. Upon receipt of such information, the Intake Officer may make such preliminary investigation as he or she deems necessary, and shall incorporate the information into a written intake report, including as much specificity as possible. The Intake Officer shall provide copies of the intake report to the other members of the Reference Panel and to the Church Attorney.

Sec. 5. If the Intake Officer determines that the information, if true, would not constitute an Offense, the Intake Officer shall inform the Bishop Diocesan of an intention to dismiss the matter. If the Bishop Diocesan does not object, the Intake Officer shall dismiss the matter…

Bishop Matthew’s email does not notify the bishops that he is dismissing the charges. To the contrary: he states that he will “initiate a disciplinary process according to Title IV Canon 6 Sec. 3 & 4 ...”. Those Canons spell out the offenses for which clergy may be charged, and would be irrelevant if the charges were being dismissed. Consequently, either Bishop Matthews wanted to dismiss the charges, but the Presiding Bishop objected; or else Bishop Matthews truly believes the charges may constitute an offense under the Church canons, and so he is proceeding with his investigation. (There would be no reason for him even to advise the bishops of the complaints if he did not think they presented actionable charges under the Canons.)

But just what does it mean to say that ECUSA is or is not “hierarchical”? In legal proceedings, such a statement is called a “conclusion of law”, reached after an inquiry into all the relevant facts. Attorneys and judges differ all the time over conclusions of law, and so it is fair to say that what the law will conclude on a given set of facts is a matter of opinion. And that is why the bishops filed their various affidavits and brief: ECUSA had given its opinion to the judges in each case that it was “hierarchical,” and the bishops simply wanted to give the contrary version of that opinion.

After all, it is for the judges ultimately to decide which view is more correct (or to modify their holding to yet another version, if they are so inclined). That is what judges are paid to do. So how can the Episcopal Church (USA) possibly charge someone with discipline for expressing an opinion? Such a right is guaranteed to everyone in America by the First Amendment.

Well, if it is not opinion in the case of the Episcopal Church (USA), then is it a matter of Church doctrine? Is the polity of the Episcopal Church (USA) truly a “doctrinal” matter?

It does not matter if it were, because then the following provisions of Canon IV.17.7 would apply:

Notwithstanding any provision of this Title to the contrary, no proceeding shall be brought under this Title against a Bishop in which the Offense alleged is violation of Canon IV.4.1(h)(2) for holding and teaching, or having held and taught, publicly or privately, and advisedly, any Doctrine contrary to that held by the Church unless a statement of disassociation shall have first been issued by the House of Bishops as provided in Canon IV.17.7 (a) and thereafter the consent of one-third of the Bishops qualified to vote in the House of Bishops has been received to initiate proceedings under this Title as provided in Canon IV.17.7 (b).

Needless to say, no such “statement of disassociation” has been issued by the House of Bishops. Thus Bishop Matthews cannot be treating the bishops’ alleged offense as a matter of advocating false doctrine.

That takes us back to expressing a matter of opinion. One searches in vain through the new Title IV for any offense that consists of expressing an opinion at variance with the leadership of the Church. The loosest of all the provisions is for engaging in “conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy”, and if it is “conduct unbecoming” to disagree with the position that ECUSA is hierarchical, then a considerable number of clergy in the Church would have to be charged.

The idea, of course, is ridiculous on its face. And that is why these “charges” against these bishops should never have made it past the Intake Officer in the very first place. He could have informed the Presiding Bishop that the charges, even if true, did not rise to the level of an offense under the Canons. And if the Presiding Bishop then did object to dismissing them, she herself might be charged under the provisions of Canon IV.3.1 (c):

Sec. 1. A Member of the Clergy shall be subject to proceedings under this Title for:

(c) intentionally and maliciously bringing a false accusation . . . in any investigation or proceeding under this Title.

(Emphasis added.) These charges are certainly intentionally brought, because it takes, as noted above, the concurrence of the Presiding Bishop not to have dismissed them in the first instance. And are they “maliciously” brought as well?

Comments

67
67 comments

Allan references a post on the HoB/D but doesn’t include it in his post, because he adheres to the pledge he made when subscribing to the list not to reproduce posts without permission.

However, I don’t subscribe to the list, but I’m periodically provided posts from it by other subscribers. Since I’m neither a subscriber nor have i pledged to keep the list’s contents private - and since I reject outright the notion that the list, as a creature of the church, should enjoy any protections from publication in the first place - I am providing the post Allan references:

Friends,

What I am not hearing in these discussions about restructuring and budget development is how we will structurally incorporate and effectively implement the principles of transparency and accountability in this hierarchical Church. For example, exactly how will these principles be incorporated into various the proposals being advanced to restructure and into the process for budget development?

Maybe I have missed it, but I do not see a wave of enthusiastic, voluntary evidence of transparency or accountability emanating from the dioceses, particularly when some bishops who are still in our midst still claim that they and their dioceses, indeed each diocese of this Church, can unilaterally leave the Church and remove all the church property from the mission and ministry of this Church; that dioceses are “sovereign,” “autonomous” and not accountable to the rest of the Church; that the bishop diocesan is the highest authority in this Church; and that this Church itself has no authority in the Diocese, resisting as “meddling” or “boundary incursions” any effort to monitor basic governance principles and its local use of significant resources in the name of The Episcopal Church.

I urge that we can and will continue to get a lot more feedback and useful, aggregated information out of 815 and the central Church staff than we ever will get from the staffs and officials of the 110 separate dioceses to whom some would so readily delegate unbridled authority and resources. “Be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” Indeed.

Subsidiarity presupposes adequate accountability and does not mean the Church must deconstruct or abandon its hierarchical polity. The Church can delegate its mission and ministry to the lowest effective level but still maintain adequate governance, including effective accountability for and transparency of that delegation, and implement effective means to deal with those who refuse to play nicely, in order to benefit the mission and ministry, being done across the Episcopal Church and by and in the name of this Church.

I used to be a Baptist. I have nothing against Baptists. Some of my best friends are Baptists. But I no longer want to be in a church that establishes independent fiefdoms which can by one or two local elections disclaim allegiance to a hierarchical church and then use its property for another church du jour, at least until the next change. Been there; done that. And have had it done unto me. Baptists do being “Baptist” a lot better than a bunch of well-meaning, deconstructing Episcopalians ever will. Just tell me now if that is where you think we are headed.

Colleagues, regarding resolutions to consent to ordination and consecration of several bishops-elect, e.g., C072 Western Louisiana, C066Virginia, etc.:

We will have the opportunity to vote to consent to the ordination and consecration of several bishops-elect at General Convention.
We from Fort Worth are joined by bishops and deputies from the Dioceses of Quincy and San Joaquin in our hope that none of these bishops-elect harbors the views expressed in the amicus brief recently filed against the Diocese of Fort Worth by seven (7) bishops and three (3) priests of this Church.
We respectfully ask that you support us in our request that, before the Bishops and Deputies are asked to vote on these consent resolutions,
1. each bishop-elect will have been appropriately and directly examined at a public hearing of the Legislative Committee on Consecration of Bishops or other appropriate public forum in order to confirm his or her (a) understanding of the basics of the polity of this hierarchical Church and (b) specifically whether he or she contends that dioceses have the unilateral and autonomous authority to leave the Church and take church property with them; and
2. those views be published or otherwise communicated to both houses.
Specifically, as you all probably know, on April 23, 2012 several bishops of this Church-The Rt. Rev. Maurice M. Benitez (retired, Diocese of Texas); The Rt. Rev. John W. Howe (retired, Diocese of Central Florida); The Rt. Rev. Paul E. Lambert (suffragan, Diocese of Dallas); The Rt. Rev. William H. Love (diocesan, Diocese of Albany); The Rt. Rev. D. Bruce MacPherson (diocesan, Diocese of W. Louisiana); The Rt. Rev. Daniel H. Martins (diocesan, Diocese of Springfield); and The Rt. Rev. James M. Stanton (diocesan, Diocese of Dallas)-filed an amicus brief with the Texas Supreme Court which urged that Court to reverse the summary judgment in favor of The Episcopal Church, Bishop Wallis Ohl, and the loyal Episcopalians in the reorganized, continuing Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, promoting a fundamental misunderstanding of the polity of our Church, including misrepresentations that:

* The Church is hierarchical only to the diocesan level, not to the General Convention;
* In the Episcopal Church, the highest authority is the diocesan bishop, not General Convention;
* A diocese in the Episcopal Church is autonomous;
* The Diocese of Fort Worth (and therefore presumably any diocese in the Episcopal Church) can unilaterally leave this Church (and presumably usurp the historic church names, records, funds and substantial other real and personal property as the breakaway group forms or affiliates with a new church);
* Breakaway former bishop Jack Iker, not Provisional Bishop Wallis Ohl who is recognized by this Church, is still the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and that it is Iker’s determination of core ecclesiastical issues, e.g. identity of the bishop and other church officials, that binds the secular court under the deference standard in resolving church property disputes; and
* Iker and the breakaway Defendants should prevail in the litigation against the loyal Episcopalians and thus be able to remove from the mission and ministry of The Episcopal Church and its Diocese and congregations the historic church names, records, funds and substantial other real and personal property throughout the Diocese.
Certainly this request is not a criticism or judgment of any of the bishops-elect we will prayerfully consider in the consent process at General Convention. They-and future bishops-elect for whom the dioceses may grant or withhold their consent-can and should speak unambiguously for themselves on these issues.

We believe strongly that, as we vote, each Deputy and Bishop should be fully informed of the position of each bishop-elect on these fundamental issues and consider the grave spiritual, missional, and financial costs of the schisms which can emanate from all those qualified accession clauses and this “hierarchy stops at me” mentality.

If this is an example of how a hierarchal TEc operates, then the politsei in charge of keeping the polity in line are ready to crack down on any dissent. Yes, the black sedans are coming. I will reserve a parking place for them in my driveway.

I had thought the PB would stay under the radar for a while after the charges against Bp. Mark Lawrence failed.

I was wrong.

News of the charges is stunning.

The letter in #2 is…well…beyond stunning. It asks that GC do something that it was unwilling to do in the case of VGR - not to give consent to someone whom a diocese has elected. It threatens to shatter the national Constitution and Canons.

I wonder whether there will be anything left of TEC after General Convention.

Presumably, Chancellor Wells is smart enough not to have filed these charges herself. If she did, I hope the Texas bar association has a field day with her.

Mr. Haley, I love your reasoning ability. It is a great asset to you and many of us who would not understand these things without your analysis. Alas, as we all know reason and the rule of law means nothing to these people. No doubt, they were not happy with the recent statement of Standing Committee of South Carolina and that action may have played a part in the actions. I noticed Ms. Wells used much of the terminology in this and other communications from the Diocese of SC.

and implement effective means to deal with those who refuse to play nicely, in order to benefit the mission and ministry, being done across the Episcopal Church and by and in the name of this Church.

I would translate this to mean -
implement effective means to deal with those bishops and dioceses that refuse to tow the line in order to benefit the many legal suits being done across the Episcopal Church and by and in name of this church.

Allan, given that several of the accused bishops still hold employment in TEC, and the nature of the charges mean that they are having their livelihood threatened for expressing a view in a secular court, could said court hold the accusers in contempt of court if they are also parties to the secular suits? I’m thinking of more than just ethics proceedings against the lawyers, but any TEC clergy (including Schori, if she’s a party) who are involved in both actions.

Wow, didn’t see these until I posted. Very,very ugly and all bets are off. The mask has come off and they have finally revealed their true goal - complete submission to THEIR AGENDA. None of this - please…. the people of these dioceses have elected their bishop. Let them have their choice. Oh no. WOW. Next will be the changes to say Bishops will be appointed by the PB and not elected.

At least the Standing Committee of SC had the guts to actually publish their letter. I wonder if the SC of SC letter went to other standing committees. Just curious. I doubt it.

Ralph, No doubt it would be easy enough to get together a group of laity that would be glad to send in the charges. Remember anyone can send in charges against a Bishop.

Ralph wrote:

It asks that GC do something that it was unwilling to do in the case of VGR - not to give consent to someone whom a diocese has elected

Well, yes. Of Course because doing this would be in their interest to push forward their agenda. What is good for the goose (conservatives) is NOT good for the gander. WE decide- you don’t. Got it? Sickening for sure. Oh my to be a fly on the wall at General Convention.

I think that all these actions against various bishops should be collected into their own special section of the thread to document the destruction of TEc. I’ve always thought that one of the more heinous event was in regard to Bishop McBurney (partly because I knew him and he was a friend of my parents) while he was dealing with a dying son. The Harlot of 815 knew of the circumstances but would not hold off and deposed him two or three days before the sons death.

Of course, the timing creates the maximum intimidation within the House of Bishops at General Convention. However, there is another way that the timing is fascinating.
In the Hebrew calendar, yesterday was the 9th of Tammuz, year 5772. The Babylonian armies of King Nebuchadnezzar breached the walls of Jerusalem on the 9th of Tammuz in the Hebrew year 3338 (423 BCE). King Ziddikiahu (known as Zedekiah in English) of Judah was captured and taken to Babylon. Three weeks later the capture of Jerusalem was finished with the destruction of the Holy Temple and the exile of most Jews to Babylon.

David F. (#6), the bishops in question are not parties to any of the lawsuits so the courts entertaining the property lawsuits would not have any jurisdiction to inquire into the motivations behind the charges. If these charges were brought in a civil court (e.g., for alleged breach of fiduciary duty owed to the employer), then each bishop could have his own individual claim for an attempt to deprive him of his civil rights, or could counter any such suit with a motion to strike it on those grounds (“SLAPP motion”). But I’m afraid I don’t see any civil remedy for charges brought in an ecclesiastical court. The secular courts are going to leave all such disciplinary matters to the internal church courts.

When I read the second Wells letter yesterday, my thoughts went to, “Well, here,‘s the ‘smoking gun issue for GC77.” Heretofore all of the HoB/D postings had been pure vanilla, with one set of errant exchanges about sexuality.

Did anyone in TEo expect anything more or less from these folks? I mean, seriously? The writing’s been on the wall for a decade or more that they will twist any Canon, defy others, ignore the rest to get what they want. And what they want is a hard-left, homosexual organization that retains enough of a religious patina to keep the tax dodge going. What are you all still doing in this outfit?

Man, it sure is great to see that Bishop Matthews is finally investigating Katherine Jefferts Schori for hiring Bede Parry, a known sexual abuser of minors, and then placing him in a position of trust over minors without giving anyone any notification or warning whatsoever.

I’m now wondering how this will affect Nashotah House, considering that Bishop Salmon is the dean (and a very beloved one at that). A lot of people predicted this very thing once the new Title IV revisions were passed. But 10 bishops? Some of them sitting diocesans? All men who have tried to hang in there with the Episcopal Church? More proof to me that there is no sense in staying in TEC, especially if you are going to be brought up on charges for sticking up for what you believe in.

Good to know Matthews is such a friendly guy and stays on a first name basis with all his good buds that he is investigating and deposing.

Yes, you can appoint child abusers to parishes and be PB and quash investigations of yourself while literally assaulting all that is Holy. But beyond whatever cost KJS and her ilk pay in eternity, there will be a cost here as well. I am not much of a theologian, but I have some credits in graduate level finance and economics. My prediction is that if TEC goes through with this and it results in charges against these bishops, it will not be taken well by their dioceses or the parishes in them. The resultant legal expenses will be substantially more than those budgeted in any of the proposed triennial budgets. Every bishop deposed for defending the faith also costs TEC thousands of members, and every priest deposed hundreds- whether the diocese or parish leaves TEC or not. And the folks who leave over theological issues are the ones who go to church every Sunday, and who are the regular financial supporters of the Church.

Unfortunately for TEC, all the bishops with the courage to stand up against tyranny are those charged. No one should expect the sniveling cowards of the HoB to stand up to this- they won’t even stand up to maintain confirmation or holy communion at the coming GC. They are content to be bureaucrats who will serve out their time until the pension kicks in- assuming there still is a pension fund after all the leveraged financing for lawsuits.

Sorry, had something of a head of steam in writing that last, did not mean to omit +Lawrence from the list of bishops opposing the tyranny of 815.

One assumes that with so many copies of documents in order to file charges against so many bishops at one time, the line at the copier was pretty long, and they may have had to put off making up something to charge +Lawrence with until Monday.

If, instead of Holy Scripture, they are using Mein Kampf as a leadership manual, then it makes no sense that +Mark has been excluded.

With charges filed against these bishops, one would assume that some action will be taken to keep them from having voice and vote at General Convention.

The PB is at a point in her spiritual development that expressions of hatred and anger will only strengthen her in her resolve to serve her master.

I don’t know whether TEC polity offers any means of stopping her at this point. But all efforts need to be made. I hope the liberal and so-called moderate bishops can see what’s happening, and take action.

TJ, +Lawrence was merely the first to be charged under the new Title IV Canons. He has already been charged and the charges were dropped last year as the disciplinary board recognized that the charges were without merit. May the charges against these bishops come to the same conclusion- without merit.

Wow, Jill. Interesting comparison. Does this mean TEC has only 3 weeks left???

25- I am well aware that +Lawrence was charged and those charges dropped. But in that case, the PB made the mistake of assuming she had enough votes in the HoB to convict before she brought charges, and then discovered she did not have adequate support to push the charges through. With several new uber revisionists, she now has the votes in hand to block the new conservative nominees, and has, I am sure, assured herself that she has reinstated the voting blocks that allowed here to illegally depose the other bishops in 2007-09.

My point is that we can expect new charges against +Lawrence to come out soon, and we can expect that of the bishop elections to be decided at GC, any who will not swear allegiance to the hierarchy of TEC will not be approved. We can then expect a variety of show trials of the bishops, in order to make it completely clear to any liberals and revisionists that they are to tow the line, pay their tax to 815, or face the same penalties.

The point of the exercise is that the PB was in hot water with much of the HoD for her abuses of power (ie- some of the revisionists are mad that their personal projects take a back seat to the PB’s personal projects), mishandling of budget, and most especially for her ouster of Bonnie Anderson (Bonnie being sort of the Trotsky character in all this- she was leading the revisionist charge while the PB was still studying squid in Oregon). Now, she can a) scare any lingering backbone out of the HoB and b) redirect all the anger of the HoD toward the conservative bishops who refuse to accept the imposition of totalitarian government. Lets her sail through GC with her program in place, the new conservative bishop-elects not approved, and once the kangaroo proceedings start, she can eliminate everyone who might have opposed her constitutionally questionable reelection in 2015 (and, of course, any bishop who points that out, will be charged with not respecting the hierarchy).

TJ, New charges may be brought again +Lawrence. You could be right. Sorry, if I made you even madder. At this point, now it will be interesting to see if the rest of the Disciplinary committee goes along with these charges? They might but then again some thought the charges against +Lawrence were serious enough.

I think Mr. Haley may be on to something when he writes:

To be sure, Bishop Matthews is unable to dismiss the charges on his own if the Presiding Bishop objects to that dismissal.

Could be these charges are put forth simply because KJS+ wants the charges to go forward and Bishop Matthews is merely the messenger.

When TEC implodes as an organization. As a thoroughly Stalinist organization now, it will take several forms on its way to self-extinction. We’re living the terror now. The purges will follow, once dissent has been crushed and the promise of complete, if artificial, consensus fails to bring about an era of prosperity and expansion.

Well, I would say as an outsider that we are watching the implosion of TEC right now. The in-fighting over two or is it three budgets, the delusional predictions of 19% income from dioceses, the empty coffers from feeding the voracious Mr Beers and his partners. The churches leaving may have stopped, but the occupants of seats are leaving faster and faster, and many of the churches to which that is happening are reaching the point of no return. And at the heart of this organisation is the clericidal Presiding Bishop seeking more and more money and influence when her own policies are the reason for the shortage of funds and the decline of the organisational. Like all such organisations, you witness the officers fighting on the bridge when they should be attending to the gaping holes through which the water is entering the hull.

Looking back in the not too distant future, I would say that all this will look obvious, just as it does to anyone who stands back and takes a hard look at what is going on.

But it is not worth getting too upset about. TEC is now apparently only getting about 600,000 turning up on a Sunday, Cathedrals and churches are closing, and although the nasty denizens of its house of bishops snarl and lash out, the truth is that in both US Christian terms and in the Communion it is an irrelevant entity a fraction of the size of the main players and now getting towards half the size of the Church of England. Expect increasingly bad behaviour and in-fighting, but see it in perspective of a small rabid dog to be kept at a distance as it snarls and foams at the mouth on its way out, and on no account put a hand anywhere near it. Much better to talk to those nice people at ACNA, or indeed almost any other Christian organisation and keep a pray for those struggling to keep a Christian witness within TEC. If they survive, they may be the remnant which God will allow to rebuild from the carcass of this once wonderful church.

To TownsendWadill+ who writes, “All men who have tried to hang in there with the Episcopal Church? More proof to me that there is no sense in staying in TEC, especially if you are going to be brought up on charges for sticking up for what you believe in.”

I think that Sarah would say that it provides wonderful witness at the depravity and stupidity of the revisionists. The bishops not only are witnesses but become martyrs in the eyes of the laity.

Yes, while TEC has adopted a Stalinist worldview and tactics, it still lacks the crucial element of Stalinism: Brute force. So while TEC can bully and even cause some economic hardship to some of its functionaries, ultimately everyone can just walk away from it. No gulags, no nukes, no psychiatric facilities. There are plenty of places to walk to, and we should be quite open to clergy and layity alike that we welcome the exiles.

I suppose TEC will remain in some fashion as a rump semi-religious curiosity, glorious in its historical trappings but utterly enervated by revisionist nihilism, managerial incompetence and lawless governance. The real church will have moved on, however.

#19 Counsellor Haley - may I ask what is probably an ignorant question in terms of US law, but I am keen to learn more about your system in the US.

I understand that Ms Wells may well be in breach of her professional obligations through witness tampering, but what of those who instruct her and who have participated in the ‘disciplinary’ process? How would the Judge concerned view them and their interference with his court? Do you have a concept of being in contempt of court in the US and is it possible that it could apply to this interference with this court?

Pageantmaster (#35), we need to be careful in our terminology (and I understand that you will not be intimate with American law, so these comments are also for the benefit of lay readers of the article). “Witness tampering” is, in American law, a criminal offense punishable by fines and a prison term. It applies only to pending court proceedings involving testimony given to a court. The next ECUSA trial will probably not be until next April, in the Quincy case, and we cannot know yet the witnesses whom the Anglican diocese will put on the stand, still less what pressures might be brought to bear on them at that time to affect or influence their testimony.

If Chancellor Wells filed these charges—and I stress that is a big “if”, because the filers remain confidential until charges are actually sent to a Conference Panel (Canon IV.12.3), and that (I hope) will not happen here—then she, or any other attorney in the Fort Worth or Quincy litigation who instigated, or helped instigate, these charges against witnesses on the other side, may be liable to professional discipline if it ever comes out as to who complained to the DBB. That discipline would be administered under the rules of the bar association to which the attorney belongs, and not by any of the courts involved.

But it is not clear, at this stage, whether or not we (or even those accused) shall ever learn the name(s) of the Complainant(s) to the DBB. The new Canons are emphatic that all proceedings remain confidential unless and until they progress past the intake, investigation and reference levels to the formal conference stage. Not even the accused have any right to confront their accusers until that point, unless the Presiding Bishop were to determine otherwise, in the interest of conciliation, or of any pastoral response she may decide to make.

(And it is a greater concern of mine that the Presiding Bishop, if she objects to the charges being dismissed, may want to use these cases as a test of her newly-granted metropolitical powers under the amended Title IV canons. They give her the power, for example, to inhibit or restrict the ministry of any of these bishops at any time based on the charges, as well as to issue them each a “pastoral directive”—such as, for instance, a direction that they not offer any more testimony contrary to the position she and her attorneys are taking in court. If she tries that, we will then be in a major confrontation over her disciplinary powers, depending on how these bishops react to any such attempt.)

The courts in America, meanwhile, can punish only contempts which occur in open court, or out of court, if in defiance of a previously issued order. That has not yet occurred here.

robroy #33, Thanks for your reply. I see no reason for them to stay. Scripture says we are not to stay and witness to false prophets and false teachers. Instead, it says that we are to have nothing to do with them. It only impedes their ability to witness where they should be witnessing - to the world. It’s hard to do that when you have to spend significant portions of your time responding to canonical charges and fighting the battles against the very church that should be supporting them and building them up.

Jeffersonian at #34 makes a good point when it comes to TEc in and of itself. As Pageantmaster agrees in #32, TEc is a rather irrelevant little sideshow on the world stage.

But, with the U.S. government and certainly various state govt’s acting in the same way, ignoring the rule of law to empower certain factions and personalities to “rescue” us from the endless parade of declared emergencies, what goes on in TEc is worth noting. TEc was a church of the American mainstream; it’s that no longer, but it is a window into the thinking of American elites.

Was Bp Matthews that sloppy when he referenced the wrong diocese in his notification to the “accused” bishops? The above referenced letter to them says “Diocese of Texas” and not “Diocese of Ft. Worth.”

That seems like an easy defense to me, “I never signed an Amicus Curiae Brief regarding the Diocese of Texas.”

For the faithful, that means God isn’t referred to as “him,” and references to “the Lord” are rare.

“Lord” has become a loaded word conveying hierarchical power over things, “which in what we have recorded in our sacred texts, is not who Jesus understood himself to be,” St. Philip’s associate rector Susan Anderson-Smith said.

“The way our service reads, the theology is that God is love, period,” St. Philip’s deacon Thomas Lindell added. “Our service has done everything it can to get rid of power imagery. We do not pray as though we expect the big guy in the sky to come and fix everything.”

It’s OK to express the opinion that Jesus is not Lord, with heirarchical power over things. It’s not OK to express the opinion that TEC is not a heirarchical church.

Cranmerian (#40), no, you are not missing anything; it is difficult to explain how Bishop Matthews could have gotten that simple fact wrong. The Diocese of Texas has nothing to do with the appeals before the Supreme Court of Texas. Either Bishop Matthews was that careless, or else both the accuser(s) and Bishop Matthews were that careless. Either way, it is par for ECUSA’s course.

As the Intake Officer for the Church, I am obliged to inform you that a complaint has been received against you for your action in filing of Amicus Curiae Brief in the pending appeal in the Supreme Court of Texas in opposition to The Episcopal Diocese of Texas and The Episcopal Church.

Hers is the text as cited in Tim Fountain’s+ post of Bishop Love’s letter to his diocese:

“As the Intake Officer for the Church, I am obliged to inform you that a complaint has been received against you for your action in filing of Amicus Curiae Brief in the pending appeal in the Supreme Court of Texas in opposition to The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and The Episcopal Church.

Can’t these bishops shoot back by suing ECUSA for violating the Whistleblower Clause? After all, who the real “Diocese of Quincy” is is the very issue that the court is seeking to determine. Surely the law must protect these Godly bishops for doing their duty and telling the truth. Has Jefferts-Schori finally gone too far…?

#18- There are many of us worried for the future of Nashotah, as there are any number of 815 types poised to seize it and sell off that beautiful piece of land (it truly is one of the most beautiful places on the planet) for construction of condos, although maybe keeping some of the buildings to operate as an affirming catholic revisionist seminary under the TEC diocese of Milwaukee. I received assurances from several Nashotah folks years back that such a thing could never happen (when we buried Mom in the churchyard there several years ago, next to Dad who died many decades past). But TEC has shown a remarkable ability to break trusts, void state real estate and fraud laws, and seize whatever they want to seize. Deposing the Dean would only make that a bit easier.

I suspect that KJS wanted to get these charges filed before GC because the diocesans named will be the ones who will make the most trouble after GC does its gay marriage celebration over the next few weeks. Gives TEC a leg up in court if any of the dioceses try to take action when GC approves gay marriage, or if they remove baptism as a requirement for Communion, or canonically assault Confirmation.

Meanwhile, KJS and Bennison remain “bishops.”

That said, Sarah and others like her who remain in TEC have important work to do. TEC is the ideal place for real evangelism, and it desperately needs your help, and that of good clergy and laity who can stay in it. It is difficult to see, however, how can families stay in most places, as they would be exposing their children to outright heretical teaching in sermons and Sunday school? This is spiritual warfare, and the first thing you do in a war is to evacuate the children from the battlefield. And it is almost impossible at this point for those of us raised in the Catholic part of the Anglican tradition to see TEC as maintaining legitimate Sacraments or Apostolic order- meaning that we cannot receive Holy Communion in that church from the vast majority of its clergy. It is not a matter of whether we WANT to stay, but whether it is a church anymore. This is not to say that there are not still members of THE Church Militant among the clergy in TEC, because clearly there are (several of them being named in these charges), but in many places, they are almost impossible to find.

Sooner or later, the Lord God will straighten out TEC, and if the current situation is indicative of His plans, it ain’t gonna be pretty. “This church” certainly seems well along on the road to self destruction, and perhaps has passed the last exit. Prayers for all good Christians who remain in TEC.

I still wonder whether the TEC-9 will have voice and vote at General Convention.

I don’t know what control the Diocese of Milwaukee, 815, or General Convention would have over Nashotah House and its property.

Since the bloggers are allowing commenting about leaving or staying (e.g., #45), no, this isn’t the last straw for me, either. All eyes are on General Convention, what does and does not happen there, and (afterwards), what happens at the diocesan level. TEC, after all, is not (nor has it ever been) hierarchical at the national level, no matter what a group of malevolent laity and clergy wish to assert. Even they know better - this isn’t a matter of ignorance. It’s just pure evil.

“... it is almost impossible at this point for those of us raised in the Catholic part of the Anglican tradition to see TEC as maintaining legitimate Sacraments or Apostolic order- meaning that we cannot receive Holy Communion in that church from the vast majority of its clergy. It is not a matter of whether we WANT to stay, but whether it is a church anymore.”

Absolutely true, TJ, absolutely true. I posted a similar comment a few days ago.

I would rather have the world’s billion plus Muslims turn to Jesus than the half million heretics of the TEC (many of whom are probably just lazy and ignorant). Maybe I should join the Islamic community and try to reform it from within. That might approximately difficult on a per capital basis but at least you make up on volume.

I think we all agree the e-mail should never have been sent out at all, much less the charges given any “validity”.

A.S. Haley writes in his clarification:

Since writing it, however, I have heard from one bishop who
clarified the matter with Bishop Matthews that no determination of validity has
yet been made, and that the emails were for “information only.”

However, Bishop Matthews in his e-mail wrote:

In the next few weeks, I will initiate a disciplinary process according to Title IV Canon 6 Sec. 3 & 4 of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church.”

I will initiate a disciplinary process implies he already found “validity”.

If this was meant to intimidate before GC - and it’s my and other opinion it is
for intimidation - it’s my hope our delegation and others will continue their
solid stand in the Faith in spite of what is spewing around them. We really need
to be laying down prayer cover, folks.

Curmudgeon, I wonder if that last comment amounts to an element of pre-judging by +Matthews, which means that the appropriate administrative procedure has not been followed, and therefore the next stage cannot proceed until it is followed?

We use different terminology in Australia for judicial review of administrative action, but I expect similar procedures exist in USA.

MichaelA (#55), if it’s not an element of pre-judging, then it is a sadly undisciplined view of the disciplinary process, for an Intake Officer. But one will have to wait for the next step to see which is which.

What makes me suspicious (and believe me, since 85% of the screw-ups I encounter arise from laziness or carelessness, rather than an intent to harm, or violate the rules, I came into this matter expecting to find the usual negligence) is what others have noticed about the timing, on the eve of General Convention. The budget is up for grabs, and it is high time deputies to GC started to question the totally improper litigation fees being paid to the Chancellor’s own law firm.

Perhaps, therefore, this was indeed a shot across the bow of those who would dare to oppose the litigation agenda in any manner.

However, there is no court in America that will accept a case to review how ECUSA’s bishops did or did not follow canonical procedures—so no “administrative review”, in that sense. And indeed, Canon IV.19.2 says:

No member of the Church, whether lay or ordained, may seek to have the Constitution and Canons of the Church interpreted by a secular court, or resort to a secular court to address a dispute arising under the Constitution and Canons, or for any purpose of delay, hindrance, review or otherwise affecting any proceeding under this Title.

The disciplinary Canons do incorporate what we call “the presumption of innocence” (Canon IV.19.16), but in reviewing Title IV’s provisions, I found this disturbing passage, in Canon IV.19.1:

Members of the Clergy have voluntarily sought and accepted positions in the Church and have thereby given their consent to subject themselves to the Discipline of the Church. They may not claim in proceedings under this Title constitutional guarantees otherwise associated with secular court proceedings.

I assume that the bold language must refer to procedural guarantees in the U. S. Constitution, such as due process, and the right to a speedy trial, etc. I cannot believe that clergy are required to give up their First Amendment rights of free speech, assembly, and the right to petition the government just because they decided to be ordained in ECUSA.

If I am wrong, we should soon find out, shortly after General Convention ends.

I cannot believe that any private association of Americans can possibly be allowed to enforce such a canon. Do American courts allow private groups to regulate themselves to such a degree that they are permitted to violate the rights of people living in the USA?

It is a very interesting question that you pose, Senior Priest (#57). Of course, the answer is “No” for most private groups. But the courts deal with religious denominations in many ways that are different from how they handle private groups like the Masons, or the Elks, or Rotarians.

In order to address the niceties of those differences, I will have to look at this subject in a separate post. It is simply too complex a matter to deal with in a single comment.

“I cannot believe that clergy are required to give up their First Amendment rights of free speech, “

Here goes TJ, about to get in way over his head…. But, I think I have to disagree with Mr. Haley here. I think that clergy are required to give up exactly that (freedom of speech). A church is fully within its rights, for example, to remove from the clergy a cleric who denies the existence of God, or radically alters liturgy, or otherwise says things that are specifically contrary to the teachings of the Church. In fact, TEC’s problem over the last 50 years has been its refusal to discipline clergy for heresy, and now find themselves in a circumstance where heretics rule the organization.

Laity may hold and espouse any view you care to as American citizens, but this is NOT true for the clergy, who are bound by the doctrine of the church. If they wish to espouse views that are contrary to the vows they took at ordination, they should indeed renounce their orders (hence, of course, the majority of the HoB and TEC clergy should resign immediately).

What we are seeing here, however, is yet another example of clergy who are espousing the doctrine of the Church (or, in this specific case, an accurate view of the history and polity of the Church) being harassed for REFUSING to violate the vows they took at ordination.

tjmcmahon (#60), you and I are on the same page—don’t worry. When I spoke about exercising freedom of speech, I meant expressing views in the secular arena not at odds with what priests vow to uphold when they are ordained, namely, the received doctrine of the church. But in post-Pike ECUSA, as we know, there is selective enforcement of such requirements. E.g., +Pike, +Spong and +Righter get off with no punishment, while Bishop Duncan was deposed, not for violating his vows, but for a thought-crime.

54, lakeland two, I saw that sentence too- I will…..... Indeed Bp. Matthews has already made-up his mind to investigate the complaints. It is not a matter of ” I am informing you such a complaint has been brought”. nope. Although as Mr. Haley said such inconsistencies cane from haste,carelessness, or simple laziness. Of course such inconsistencies can also be dutifully avoided if is not play along with the agenda.

Mr. Haley,
That is indeed a disturbing part of Canon IV.19.1. The changes in the Title IV canons was one of the reasons this diocese does not accede to the Canons any longer.
Like you, I too, find it difficult to believe that clergy give up their constitutional rights as citizens simply for being ordained by TEC. TJ, I understand what you are saying as well. The problem is that in this case, the clergy were simply putting forth a view to a secular court. This was NOT to an ecclesiatical court of TEC ( which does not exist anyway- although Diocese do indeed have ecclesiastical courts) but to a secular court.

Sometimes, the evil intent of TEC is just too much for me to understand.

I see how this works: Implement BishopsGate just before GC to send the message, “This will happen to you too if you oppose LGBTXYZPDQABC/communion for the unbaptized/transgender for everybody, etc. You better get on board. Or else!”

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.